Supreme Court Upholds Rajasthan High Court’s Decision to Deny Civil Judge Post Based on Criminal Antecedents: Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vs. Akashdeep Morya & Anr. (2021) INSC 581 (16 September 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 16 September 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 581
Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Can a High Court interfere with the decision of a committee to deny a judicial post to a candidate based on past criminal involvements, despite acquittals? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, examining the balance between an employer’s discretion and a candidate’s right to fair consideration. The Court ultimately upheld the decision of the Rajasthan High Court to deny the post of Civil Judge to a candidate with a history of criminal cases, despite his acquittals. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, issued a notification on 25 November 2013, inviting applications for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Akashdeep Morya, the first respondent, applied. While the application form did not require disclosure of criminal involvements, Morya volunteered information about his implication in several criminal cases during the verification process.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court Committee initially decided not to recommend Morya for the Civil Judge position on 6 July 2015, which was reaffirmed on 29 July 2015, and again on 26 August 2015, after being asked to re-examine the matter by the Full Court. Morya then filed a writ petition, which was disposed of with the direction to the High Court to reconsider his case in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. The Lower Judiciary Committee reviewed the matter again but maintained its stance that Morya was not suitable for appointment, which led to the filing of another writ petition. The High Court allowed Morya’s writ petition, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to its previous judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, which outlines the principles for considering a candidate’s criminal antecedents. The relevant paragraphs from the judgment are:

• “38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:”
• “38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.”
• “38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.”
• “38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.”
• “38.5 In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.”
• “38.10 For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.”

The Court also considered the nature of the judicial post, emphasizing that it requires the highest standards of integrity and character.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are detailed below:

Appellant (Rajasthan High Court) Arguments:

• The High Court’s order was erroneous as it interfered with the employer’s discretion to assess a candidate’s suitability.

• The offences in which the first respondent was involved cannot be trivialized, especially considering the judicial post.

• There were four FIRs lodged against the first respondent, and the acquittals were not honorable or based on a complete lack of evidence. The acquittals were primarily due to compromise between the parties and witnesses turning hostile.

• The employer has the power to take a decision based on the facts and circumstances, including the impact of suppression or false information.

• For higher posts, the standard has to be very high, and even slight false information or suppression may render a person unsuitable.

• Even if disclosure has been made truthfully, the employer has the right to consider fitness, including the effect of conviction and background facts of the case.

• The decision of the appellant was not one that should have been interfered with by the High Court.

Respondent (Akashdeep Morya) Arguments:

• The first respondent belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and was falsely implicated in the cases.

• At a young age, people are prone to commit mistakes, and the approach should be more liberal.

• The offenses were not serious, and the High Court was correct in setting aside the decision of the committee.

• The dispute in the first FIR was essentially a property dispute, and the second FIR was a civil matter given a criminal color.

• The investigating authority did not find merit in the second and third FIRs, which culminated in the lodging of the final report.

• The last case involved offences under Section 323 of the IPC, which is not a serious offense.

• The liberal spirit that animated the Court in Sandeep Kumar should continue to guide the Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the decision of the Rajasthan High Court to deny appointment to the post of Civil Judge based on the criminal antecedents of the candidate, despite his acquittals.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, ruling in favor of the Rajasthan High Court. The Court emphasized that while the first respondent was acquitted, the acquittals were not “honorable” and were often the result of compromises or witnesses turning hostile, rather than a finding of innocence. The Court also highlighted the nature of the judicial post, which demands the highest standards of integrity and character.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the nature of the judicial post and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system. The Court emphasized that judicial officers must possess the highest standards of integrity and character. The Court also noted that the acquittals were not honorable and were often the result of compromises or witnesses turning hostile, rather than a finding of innocence. The Court also considered the age of the respondent at the time of the incidents, noting that he was nearly 30 years old when the last incident occurred, which was close to the time of the advertisement for the post.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court rejected the argument that the offenses were minor, emphasizing that the charges involved violence, and the acquittals did not clear the candidate of wrongdoing. The Court also rejected the argument that the respondent’s young age at the time of the offenses should be a mitigating factor, noting that he was nearly 30 when the last incident occurred. The Court held that the High Court should not have interfered with the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, as the decision-making process was not flawed.

The Court quoted from the judgment: “The post of a Civil Judge or a Magistrate is of the highest importance notwithstanding the fact that in the pyramidical structure of the judiciary, the Civil Judge or the Magistrate is at the lowest rung.”

The Court also quoted: “In other words, in the absence of a honourable acquittal, the alleged involvement of an officer in criminal cases may undermine public faith in the system.”

The Court further quoted: “The Court in judicial review is not concerned with the decision per se. It is more anxious that the decision -making process is not flawed.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The employer has the discretion to assess the suitability of a candidate based on their antecedents, even if they have been acquitted.
• The nature of the judicial post demands the highest standards of integrity and character.
• Acquittals based on compromise or lack of evidence are not considered “honorable” and do not necessarily clear a candidate of wrongdoing.
• The age of the candidate at the time of the offenses is a relevant factor, but it is not the sole determining factor.
• The Court in judicial review is more concerned with the decision-making process than the decision itself.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the employer has the discretion to assess the suitability of a candidate based on their antecedents, even if they have been acquitted, and the High Court should not interfere with such decisions unless the decision-making process is flawed. This case reinforces the principle that judicial posts require the highest standards of integrity and that acquittals based on compromise or lack of evidence do not necessarily clear a candidate of wrongdoing. This case does not change the previous position of law but rather clarifies the application of the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court upheld the decision of the Rajasthan High Court to deny the post of Civil Judge to Akashdeep Morya, emphasizing the importance of maintaining high standards for judicial posts and the employer’s discretion to assess the suitability of a candidate based on their antecedents, even if they have been acquitted.